Tag: American revolution

It was only a year ago when Occupy Wall Street gathered at Zuccotti Park on September 17, 2011. What an exciting prospect it seemed, a timely intervention to the malaise instilled by years, if not decades of neoliberal stagnancy. For a born-again 18th-century radical, it truly was Wordsworthian bliss to be alive in that dawn. And for those who were young and in the thick of the activities, it must have been “very heaven” indeed.

Flash forward to 2012. It’s hard for some not to feel discouraged by the subsequent diminution of the OWS presence after a year of repeated police crackdowns. To mourn that what began with a bang ended with a whimper–or at least, according to newspapers across the globe. Has all been lost?

Hardly.

Let’s start by crediting OWS for waking up the nation with a clarion call. This is not to say that concerns about our widening social inequity, income disparity, or the disproportionate burden of taxes on the vast majority of Americans were entirely new in 2011. But it was OWS that articulated these injustices so cannily, reminding us that “We are the 99%.” The same goes for their indictment of the big banks, casino capitalism, corporate corruption, and Citizens United. Again, although none of those topics were particularly fresh or novel, thanks to the financial crisis of 2008 and the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens in early 2010, it was OWS that brought them to front and center stage in their Declaration of the Occupation of New York City:

we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.

OWS’ central messages have resonated powerfully–despite the popular media’s strenuous efforts to sideline, if not deride them outright. We’re all familiar with the allegations repeated ad nauseam— “Their message is vague and scattered,” some claimed. “Long on words, short on action.” “Those nasty, filthy protesters need to bathe and get a job!” Etc. In short, the same, tired insults which have been levied at reformers and progressives throughout history (e.g., “Tom Paine is a leveller!”). Nonetheless, we knew something was right when even Wall Street pundits and politicians began to agree with some of the key ideals voiced by OWS, albeit reluctantly–and when the 1% embarked on the building of personal safety shelters in their mistaken fears of OWS violence. Even jocular references to OWS–for instance, as seen in that distinctively tongue-in-cheek Interactive Brokers ad, “Join the 1%”–demonstrate just how much the movement has entered into public consciousness.

But that’s not all. More crucially, OWS has proven to be not only a conduit for meaningful discussion and analysis of our crisis today, but also for genuine activism.

Consider the offshoot venture, Occupy our Homes. Launched back in December 2011, OOH has cooperated with local Occupy groups in helping victims of foreclosure retain their homes or modify their loans. In Atlanta, for instance, OOH prevented foreclosure auctions in the courthouses of DeKalb, Gwinett, and Fulton counties. 24 OOH protesters were also able to halt the eviction of a family by encamping on their lawn. And in Detroit, OOH, Occupy Detroit, Moratorium Now, and Homes Before banks also prevented the eviction of a Detroit couple from a house they had owned for over 22 years. Similar victories have been scored in Cleveland, Nashville, Rochester, and St. Paul.

More recently, members of Occupy Sunset Park are currently lending a hand to local immigrant communities in their rent strike against a landlord who refused to remedy faulty wiring, rodent infestation, and a mile-high pile of rubbish in the basement: there are already plans to have tenants form their own association or an affordable housing cooperation.

And only a few short weeks ago, OWS helped Manhattan restaurant workers unionize a Hot and Crusty restaurant after defeating the former boss and resolving a worker lock-out.

Occupiers have also extended their efforts to the environment, particularly the gas industries and the industrial agricultural system. Many have been involved in protesting tar sands oil, fracking (along with other means of extraction), and genetically modified foods (GMOs). Indeed, over the last few days, Occupy Monsanto managed to shut down receiving and shipping access points at Monsanto’s Oxnard, CA seed distribution center as a prelude to a week-long protest beginning today in order to draw attention to the lack of labelling on GMOs (“monstraception” as some call it): a protest that begins in earnest today and will be spread over at least a week.

Of course, it remains difficult to chart the future trajectory of OWS. The course of history, after all, reveals a long trail of struggles between the 1% and the 99%, a shared sense of grievance that the kings, nobles, mill owners, CEOs have always sought to bend legislation and justice to their own ends while the 99% remained largely subject to their abuses. History has shown how some populist, revolutionary movements have proven more successful than others in their immediate contexts, regardless of initial prognostications. We know that the seemingly unstoppable English peasants’ riot of 1381–a rebellion against the excesses of serfdom led by Wat Tyler–ended in defeat, as did the German Peasants’ war of 1524-6. And we know that despite the victory of the Roundheads in the English Civil War, the communal Diggers, the very first “occupiers” of unclaimed grounds and commons, eventually came to be routed. Similarly, we know all too well just as the French proceeded through no less than three revolutions more than a century and a half later, many British Chartists would not live to witness the fulfillment of any of the aims from their 1838 Charter (e.g., the secret ballot, universal male suffrage). Finally, even in America, it’s hard to forget that the separate struggles for our rights were long, wavering, and unpredictable, beginning with our own revolution. Who could foretell back in 1764 that the outrage over the Stamp Act would lead to the eventual overthrow of the world’s most powerful empire then by an odd assortment of ragtag colonists lacking any formal military training? Yet, however we view these struggles, it is a true testament to the people’s collected will over the centuries that whatever the initial setbacks encountered by the many reformers, much of the West did eventually grant universal suffrage to its citizens, to acknowledge the injustice of slavery, to enact labor and safety laws, and more importantly, retain some awareness of the need to redress extreme socioeconomic inequity.

OWS is very much a part of this process–along with the English peasants of 1381, the German peasants of 1524, the Diggers, American colonists, French Jacobins, Chartists, suffragettes, and so many others. Maybe OWS won’t be able to eradicate inequality and poverty entirely, but it might just revive our hopes and dreams for a more equitable government and a livable planet that have thus far been oppressed by our Tweedledees and TweedleDUMBs, our 1% neoliberals and neoconservatives. The fact is, our movement is no longer Occupy Wall Street but Occupy Everywhere. If it’s shrunk in terms of actual physical presence–fewer tents, fewer parades–it is also bigger, badder, and bolder than ever as it battles big banks and multinational corporations. The fact of the matter is that the movement is proving to be unstoppable. Another world is indeed possible–because we know we have it in our power to begin the world again.

“The more has been learnt from such education, the more it becomes necessary to unlearn. The more has been taught in this way, of so much the more must the mind be emptied before true wisdom can enter.”

One wonders if these problems in the K-12 history curriculum are not unrelated to those in math and science: America’s sore spots according to the results of the 2009 PISA test. (See previous post.) Interestingly, Price argued that the habits of assessing “both sides of every question” was best fostered by “the study of mathematics” because

In these sciences no one ever thinks of giving his assent to a proposition till he can clearly understand it and see it proved by a fair deduction from propositions previously understood and proved. In these sciences the mind is inured to close and patient attention, shewn the nature of just reasoning, and taught to form distinct ideas and to expect clear evidence in all cases before belief. They furnish, therefore, the best exercise for the intellectual powers and the best defence against that credulity and precipitation and confusion of ideas which are the common sources of error.”

Are students getting this in class? For now, let’s put aside the issue of the most mathematically and scientifically gifted undergraduates and graduate students eschewing K-12 teaching for engineering, finance and the university tenure track. Could it be that parents, ever prone to criticize teachers who give “absurdly difficult assignments,” are partly to blame for lax coverage of materials?

Or could it also be that teachers, intimidated by “controversy,” fail to exercise their rights as instructors—especially when addressing such topics as evolution and climate change? (Note that these are concepts that have been accepted by the vast majority of the civilized world.) According to a poll of 60,000 teachers from the National Science Teachers Association, 82% faced skepticism about global warming from their students and 54% from parents. That probably helps explain why Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Oklahoma have variously introduced more instructional materials that either question climate change or deny it altogether. This skepticism towards climate change has–not surprisingly–also been accompanied by skepticism on evolution. In fact, the Texas Board of Education has recently mandated that instructors cover “all sides” of the debate on evolution and climate change: no doubt much cause of pride for the president of the TBOE, who boasted that “Our science standards are light years ahead of any other state when it comes to challenging evolution.” You betcha!

By now, it’s painfully clear that education, from history through science, is turning into a useful tool for conservatives. Slice a bit here, add a bit there. Perhaps that’s why so many—like Rick Santorum last week—have eagerly projected their own illicit desires on those oh-so-terrible college professors, with their proclivity for “liberal indoctrination.” (Takes one indoctrinator to know another, right?) As Chris Mooney has astutely pointed out in his recent article, The Ugly Delusions of the Educated Conservative, “educated” Republicans and Tea Partiers are actually more resistant to empirical data than their less educated counterparts; their familiarity and ease with a range of talking points, absorbed through television, internet, and other literature, provides them with ready tools for argument. Indeed, one might hazard to guess that those who have been schooled at the very institutions associated with “liberal elites” (e.,g Ann Coulter, Cornell U; Bill O’Reilly, Harvard; Pat Robertson, Yale U) have proven particularly adept at fooling their masses. That’s why they can dazzle unsuspecting audiences with such choice zingers as “the fact is, global warming has not been proven. There is a wide range of factors that have not been taken into account.” (Without noting, of course, that three decades of data overwhelmingly supports this phenomenon.)

As such, conservatives know that it’s inconvenient for students to learn about the founding fathers, slavery or no slavery—lest they discover that this nation was really and truly founded on liberalism. They know it’s even less convenient for them to learn critical thinking skills—lest they begin dissecting and dismantling the gospel according to the GOP:

(1) The Government can’t create jobs. (Tell that to FDR, who created four million jobs in three months.)

(2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit. (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?)

(3) A fetus is a baby.

(4) The poor have too much money.

(5) Cutting the federal deficit will end the recession.

(6) The rich are incentivized by tax cuts, while the poor are incentivized by lower wages, no benefits, an end to the minimum wage, and unemployment.

(13) That Rick Santorum is not a snob. (Because seriously folks, who else but a snob actively discourages others from attaining/obtaining what he has? Santorum has a B.A., M.B.A., and J.D.)

Finally, they know it’s inconvenient to learn about global warming (to quote Al Gore), lest that get in the way of the lucrative gas and oil industries which funds the GOP. Education, let’s face it, bears far too many inconvenient truths: life must not be made any more taxing (pun intended) for those hard-working 1%ers.

Let’s return to item #9 on Grayson’s list of myths: “The problem with education is the teachers.” This is arguably at the crux of our present issues. At first glance, blame for this type of thinking would seem to fall squarely on the shoulders of Price himself, as gleaned from the following passage in Observations:

An unoccupied and simple mind is infinitely preferable to a mind warped by systems, and the entire want of learning better than a learning such as most of that is which hitherto has been sought and admired. A learning which puffs up, while in reality it is nothing but profounder ignorance and more inveterate prejudice.”

Was Price dissing education a la Coulter, Limbaugh, or O’Reilly? Not really. It’s important to remember that he was writing during a period when quackery abounded and English universities were notorious for lax standards (particularly when compared to Dissenting academies or Dutch and German universities); this was a time when Oxford and Cambridge had not yet embarked on a rigorous revamping of their set examinations. (Incidentally, those who proposed such measures in Price’s time were viewed as dangerous radicals–including Price’s Cambridge friend and colleague, John Jebb.) Ironically enough, however, his skepticism towards academe and its “isms” would soon be turned on Price himself and increasingly aimed at liberals.

It is indeed jarring to find conservatives borrowing the very skepticism and rhetoric of their dreaded 18th-century enlightenment: one best exemplified by the parents and boards of education who have no qualms about dictating school curricula despite their overall lack of advanced education in the subjects being taught and even less classroom experience. After all, as Price wisely opined, “The more has been learnt from such education, the more it becomes necessary to unlearn. The more has been taught in this way, of so much the more must the mind be emptied before true wisdom can enter.” Our task, then, is to rid ourselves of conservative misinformation and misrepresentation, or to unlearn, in Price’s words, “profounder ignorance and more inveterate prejudice.”

So what can we do?

Perhaps it’s time for teachers to put their collective foot down and demand respect from all quarters, beginning with parents. “No, we are not going to water down our standards so Suzy can get an A. We are not going to dilute our assignments so Johnny will have more time to participate in Little League. And we are most certainly not going to forgo evolution simply because you don’t happen believe in it.” It’s also time for the rest of us to respect and compensate our teachers far more than we used to. We can agonize all we want about the poor state of K-12 instruction, but so long as teachers do not enjoy a respect commensurate with their endeavors, the best and brightest will not feel encouraged to pursue this highly (if not most) important of professions: unlike, say, in South Korea, China, and Japan where teachers are accorded far more respect and salaries comparable to those of scientists and engineers. Rather than heaping obscene compensation in the hundreds of thousands on those who don’t actually teach or have experience doing so—i.e., M.B.A. principals or superintendents-—it’s time we offered higher pay to teachers themselves.

Then–and only then–can our students can catch up again with their peers abroad and–gasp–even outperform them.